 for us this morning to act 138 that we both, both sides have been working on, I think to sort of together, but separately, we had our joint meeting and Michael O'Grady, our legislative council person, and Steve Collier from the agency, have been working to put a package together that we can present to our negotiators that will be taking out changes to act 138 in the near future. And I think it's, I think that we've done a pretty good job of putting this together and Michael and Steve certainly worked hard on honoring our wishes and making sure everything was in order and corrected. Correct. Before we get into, I guess Michael will be presenting this to us. And before we get into that, are there any questions of any of the members? Carolyn, did you have anything from the house side? Nope, Bobby, I'm really appreciative of the work that Michael did on this and glad we've come up with what we think is a solution. I think this is excellent and it's good to see everybody's smiling faces this morning. So thank you all and especially, special thanks to Michael for fixing things. Well, Michael, are you with us yet? He is. Yeah, and well, do any of the members have anything to add before we get started? If not, we will proceed. Do you wanna take us through the proposed amendment, Michael? Sure, Linda, could you put it on the screen? So the first section is the Dairy Assistance Program and the first three changes relate to the application deadline. You'll see on page two that the initial applications, could you scroll up a little bit, Linda, right there online to the initial applications are moving from, deadline is moving from October 1st to November 15th. That same change is made on page 16, I mean, page two, line 16, where it says an addendum may be filed to the initial application on or before November 15th, November 20th. Similarly on page three, line 19, the reference to the addendum and the application deadline for the addendum is changed from October 1st to November 15th. That takes you to page four and section B. You're now in the non-dairy agricultural producer program. Before I look at the changes or review the changes, this section in previous drafts used to reference or used to amend the no net profit requirement and the definition or thresholds for farmers markets to participate. It is no longer being amended in this section, it will be addressed in a separate section. It's not that it's not being addressed, it's just being addressed in a separate section. So the change here is similar to the change in the dairy program that the application deadline is moving from October 1st to November 15th. And then you get to section C. This is the reporting authority. And then it becomes the pooling and reallocation authority as well. You'll see that the secretary is going to report on page five, lines five through seven, not about the individual programs and their status, but about all of the coronavirus release fund assistance programs. Because after October 1st, the secretary is going to be given the authority to reallocate our pool resources. If the secretary does that, the secretary should be reporting about all coronavirus relief funds and not just the individual programs. On page five, line 11, you'll see that there is a report back on October 1st with the status of the accounting of any of the coronavirus relief funds remaining in those individual programs. And then on page five, line 17 and 18, if coronavirus relief funds appropriated to those individual programs remain unappropriated or unencumbered for award after expiration of the initial October 1st deadline, the secretary may reallocate or pool unappropriated coronavirus relief funds for award to eligible applicants. The additional funds are required to meet applicant needs under one or more of the programs. I have May on page six, line one, highlighted because it could be a show. You could direct the secretary to, you could mandate the secretary reallocate or pool those unappropriated funds or you give the secretary discretion. I didn't really have certainty about what you wanted to do there. So I just highlighted the May. Michael, if we leave the May in there, wouldn't that wouldn't that allow or maybe we've got it because I brought this up the other day about a second round of applicants applying for losses. And would this May allow, would it allow the secretary to keep some money in the given funds so that if somebody wanted to reapply for more losses, they could or we got that, is that in there somewhere else? Because we talked about that. I think it would give the, it may gives the secretary that discretion. The language that we talked about last week about ensuring that funds remain in each program fund that was troublesome to Steve and the agency. But I think you still address that issue on page six, lines 10 through 13 if the secretary reallocates or pools funds, they apply the eligibility requirements and maximum award amounts for each category or type of application as if the application was submitted under the relevant individual fund. So even if the secretary reallocates all of the eligibility requirements apply and the maximum award amounts apply as well. Yeah, that will do it. I will note that there may be because the non-dairy program and the working-lance program are first come first serve as opposed to the dairy program which was designed to fund all dairy farmers. There might be some fiscal pressure on the pooled fund if this demand from non-dairy and working-lance is significantly higher than estimated in the fiscal note. But I think you have an opera because the demand on dairy has not been as vigorous as expected. I think you won't have that much of a fiscal pressure on a reallocated or pooled fund. No. The main thing is to get all the money out to our rural communities and to our farm families regardless of what type of farming they're doing. Yep. So that allows you to go to section D which is at the bottom of page six, line 14. The secretary shall process all applications for coronavirus relief assistance to see prior to the effective date in the order of the application when it was received, applicants who submitted applications prior to the effective date shall not be required to refile an application. So somebody filed an application prior to the effective date of the SAC which is gonna be around October 1st for the non-dairy program. And then the secretary reallocates or pools funds, the applicant doesn't need to resubmit an application. Does that make sense? Well, would they just apply through an addendum to their application of additional losses? Well, if they were gonna submit for additional losses then they would do an addendum to their initial application. And then on page seven, if the secretary elects to reallocate or pool the funds, the secretary shall process applications received on or before October 1st in the order received and shall issue awards from the program fund for which each application was submitted. So people that apply prior to October 1st for the individual programs get processed under those programs. They're not gonna be lumped together. It's an equity and fairness issue. They applied according to those eligibility requirements. Et cetera. But I would have some, we gotta talk about one thing with regard to that in page seven, line 14. Notwithstanding, now let's go to page seven, line six. Notwithstanding the acts and resolves of act 137, which was the ACCD Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance programs. The money that was appropriated to the working land support shall not revert to ACCD on November 15th if unencumbered. Instead, the funds appropriating to working lands shall remain available for award until the reversion required under 2020 acts and resolves number 137 section subdivision three, four. So it's not reverting to ACCD. It's gonna just revert under the general reversion to UI on December 20th. Hopefully working lands spends all of that money prior to December 20th. Well, I think has anybody been in contact? Have you or Steve with anyone from ACCD to get their blessings on this? Blessings on this? Thinking that we could use the argument that a lot of these non-dairy ag producers won't know if they've made money or lost money until the end of the season, which is from now on through the fall where they're selling their produce and products. We could use that certainly as a legitimate reason for keeping it in the working lands program so we can cover those losses. And I don't think Bob is dead. No, Bobby, I asked that question and Steve answered it and said that because we have an MOU with him with them that he thought that it could be worked out. And I don't know if Steve wants to comment at this moment. Trying, can you hear me? Yes. Sorry, thank you. So I do think we've obviously been in contact with ACCD a lot about these programs. I don't think we've specifically asked about this reversion but the reversion was in there as a fail safe to allow spending the money. And I know that ACCD is supportive of what we're trying to do here and also their support of being able to give grants to sole proprietors through their own program. So I really, I have not specifically asked this question but I do not think it's a problem at all. ACCD is working with us. They also have an interest in the working lands board and I think they support in general getting the money out to the community that needs it. Yeah, thank you, Steve. Thank you very much. Representative Shine. My question was answered by Steve Collier. Thank you. Yeah. So Bobby, should we ask for a request that Steve talk with them just to kind of double check so that we're not on the floor with some kind of snafu at the last second? Yeah, I think Steve will do that or the secretary can call the secretary. But as long as they're in concert with this, we're good to go. Absolutely. So I have a question. Yes. Thank you. So I'm just wanting to make sure since we heard about the software and the fact that it's not necessarily easy to change if someone has an addendum to their situation and they don't need to reapply, I just wanna make sure that there's already software in place that will allow them to do that without having to do the whole thing all over again. And I think it's important that we think about that ahead of time rather than get in another situation where someone needs to do an addendum and then all of a sudden it's problematic because of the software. Have you, Michael, have you chased that down, that particular question? I think asking Steve that question, I'd rather that Steve respond to that question. I could, but I think Steve's the best one. Yeah. So good morning again. And that's a great question, Senator Calamore. And here's the threshold issue is that, and correct me if I'm wrong, anyone, but as I understand the S-351 as written, every applicant is limited to a single application except for dairy which can file an addendum. There's nothing that I'm aware of elsewhere in the act that would allow anyone else to file an addendum. So I think if we are envisioning, allowing people to come back in for additional losses, expenses, except for that single addendum and dairy that already exists, we do need to change the legislation and that does create programming issues. As an example, with dairy, we first created the application. We then are working on the addendum. The addendum is not even up and running yet. It's close to it, but it is a separate process to allow people in the back in the door. And we've been talking about this issue in the agency and we want people back in the door, but we have all of those programming concerns that we've already discussed. So that is an issue. Thank you. And that's why I asked the question. I appreciate that you've already thought ahead like that. And one of the reasons you pushed back to the October 1st deadline to November 15th is to allow those non-dairy and other applicants to basically accrue more eligible expenses that they can apply for. So when they apply, they can get all of their economic loss. Yeah. Rose? Thanks, Bobby. Michael, you didn't finish going through the bill, did you? No, I didn't. I do have a point that I need to make. Yeah, I'm gonna let you make that point because I bet it's what I'm gonna ask about. So go ahead. So looking on page seven, line 14, there was a discussion about how to deal with the no net business profit for the non-dairy applicants and additionally for the W-2. So this says that it's the intent of the General Assembly that eligible applicants under the non-dairy ag program that had a net business profit between March 1, 2020 and August 1, 2020 shall be reviewed for eligibility for assistance through the Coronavirus Relief Fund working grants program or by the secretary under any pooling of funds. And that the criteria of no net business profit shall not be applied as the sole criteria for disqualifying an applicant for Coronavirus Relief Fund assistance. So I actually have two points here. The first is I probably should have not withstood the no net business profit requirement in the non-dairy program so that it's clear that you don't want that to apply and it would not apply underneath the application of the law with the notwithstanding. The next point is the W-2 issue is not addressed. And although ACCD and the house commerce have proposed that it be removed and that sole proprietors be allowed there's nothing in the language that addresses the W-2 issue. You're kind of just relying on the agency to address that in their application program. And so those are the two points I have on this language. Likely. So would you like to put that result back in there, Michael? I'd like to put a notwithstanding clause in. Yeah. And then the question for you is how do you want to address the W-2 issue? Do you want to leave it to the agency in their coordination with ACCD? Or do you want to have a statement in here about sole proprietors being eligible? Well, we certainly have a lot of sole proprietors in Ag. I don't know if that should be addressed. I would think, but we want to be in sync with ACCD on how they're going to do that as well because I know house commerce and the house wants to address that issue. So these sole proprietors can, there are small mom and pops all over the state. And we thought we were helping them or at least I thought we were helping them right from the get go. And then that gets in there. And I think everybody is trying to fix that. They're comments from other members. Yeah, Bobby, I just want to go back to, and Michael, that's exactly what I was going to ask about was the notwithstanding. So thank you for addressing that. I do think we should specifically address the sole proprietors in this legislation just to make sure we're covering the basis because Bobby's right, there are a lot of sole proprietors in Ag. And then the other question I wanted to ask you about is online 19, 19 and 20, that the criteria of the no net business profit shall not be applied as the sole criteria for disqualifying. Would that mean that it could be one of two criteria that disqualify an applicant or what do you intend with the using the word sole there? That's a good point. I didn't really want it to be used as any criteria for disqualifying. So I think taking out the words the sole shall not be applied as criteria for disqualifying an applicant. I think that's probably more consistent with your intent. Okay, great, I agree. Thanks. Can I ask a question right here just for clarification regarding the W-2s? Is that W-2 a federal requirement for the COVID money? Not to my understanding. Okay, great. So is Steve still on? Yes, Senator, I'm here. Yeah, if you've got any problems with Michael's suggestion on those two changes? Well, thank you for the question. Just we talked to the House Committee last week but have not talked to the Senate committee. So just let me briefly say we want to do all these changes. Our concerns are being able to do them timely because of the limited time. We're estimating two to four weeks to implement any application changes. And if we can't make those until October 1st and there's an application deadline of November 15th, that becomes very problematic. So I think why Mike put, and I may be wrong, but I think why you put sole criteria is that already the profit bar doesn't exist for anyone except for a sole proprietor who does not have a W-2 employee who made a profit. And the reason I say that is the S-351 funds, the non-dairy ag producer funds, only they borrowed somebody with a profit. But if you didn't have a profit, everyone was in. There's no W-2 requirement for that, for those funds. So what we did with the working lands money was we wanted people who had a profit to be able to recover. So if you had a profit, you were bumped to the working lands money. But working lands had this W-2 one employee requirement. So the only person right now who's not eligible is the profitable sole proprietor. So because that's already in the case, if we take away the W-2 requirement from working lands, there is no profit bar anymore. And it's easier for us to change our application, we think, for the W-2 requirement, because we think we can do that on the backend or we're hoping we can do that on the backend of the application. What I mean by that is we could still ask the question, do you have a W-2 employee, but then we could just ignore it in the programming so that it wouldn't have any significance. The profit piece asking about a profit, we're not because of the way the application is interdependent. Meaning that if you have a profit, you go to one source of funds. If you don't, you go to the other. The application is built upon itself to funnel people without their knowledge necessarily to the right piece. So we're worried that changing the profit equation and the application will be a lot more complicated because it will change where the funds come from. So I think our point is if you allow the pooling and you get rid of the W-2 requirement, there is no effective profit bar. And so that's easier, we think, on the application and then taking out the profit quotient as well. But I don't think you need to change the application because say you don't pool the money, it says that the net profit applicant shall be reviewed for eligibility under working land. And then it says if you do pool the money, it's not gonna be used as a criteria to disqualify the applicant. So you don't need to change the application because if you pool the money, you just treat them as if they're applying under the working lands program, right? Well, right now they're asked if they have a profit. And so that's in the application. But you then funnel them to working lands, correct? If they have a profit, yes. Right, and so you would do the same thing underneath the pooled money, right? You would just say, oh, they have a net profit, but we're gonna treat them as if they're applying under working lands. That's true if we pool all of the money, but remember this, everything is staying status quo till October 1st, and all applications filed by that data being processed that way. And so we might run out of money before there may not be any money left in one of the other funds by the time we even get to that point. So we're trying to create as much flexibility as possible to make sure we can spend all the money. And I guess that's my point. Yeah, and my question is you just said if you take away the W-2, then it takes away the profit bar, right? It takes away the only existing bar that there is. So should that go away? Beginning October 1st. I'm sorry, the W-2 part, should that go away? Yeah, beginning October 1st. Well, if the law changes, then yes, I think it will have to, and that does require an application change. We're just hopeful that that change because we think we can do it on the backend will be relatively seamless. So then the question for the committees is whether or not they wanna reference the W-2 criteria in this language. Well, that may be a question for us, but I think we're all in agreement with this, but we don't want to have everything kicked out because we've taken it out or but you said, I think you said, Michael, it doesn't seem to matter if we leave that in or take it out according to Ruth's question, that that isn't really a criteria with the feds. So we just gotta make it workable for the AG agency to be able to move forward. So I think Steve's concern is the application because until they're certain that the W-2 provision is no longer required by ACCD, they probably need to keep the application in its current state. And then when they know that the W-2 requirement is definitely going away, they're gonna have to change the application. So that means that it's probably gonna be after October 1st when the application will change. And so prior to October 1st, the application isn't changing, the eligibility requirements haven't changed, they're still gonna be potentially a profit that there's gonna be a bar for that profitable sole proprietor underneath working lands. So I think that that's the concern. Did I summarize that correctly, Steve? You're still gonna have that issue up until the application has changed. Rodney, did you have a question? Yes. If I remember right, when you look at the flow chart for the non-dairy programs, when you get down to the W-2 question, it says you can claim yourself and if you claim yourself, it lets you go through. So is there actually, does that actually work or what's the... Yes, you can be, you can claim yourself as a W-2 if you've been paying payroll taxes for yourself. If you haven't, and you haven't been treating yourself as a W-2 employee, you would not qualify. All right, thank you. Shannon, did you have a question? I do, thank you, Senator Starr. I'm recalling that it was clarified in the last joint hearing that the definition of net profit isn't necessarily what some people have understood it to be, meaning that total revenue exceeds total expenses, but the definition of net profit would allow people to consider accrual, amortization, depreciation so that I'm thinking that if the application itself is being managed by the website company, are we doing the rest of the, we're doing the rest of the website in-house and so there could be a place that people have to go to before they can get into that application and if that's managed in-house, maybe this information can be disseminated clearly there so that the agency can be more nimble and responsive and deal with this so that people understand this before they go into the application and can, instead of saying, oh no, I made a net profit, can say, well, actually, if I consider these things, I can say that I did not make a net profit and I'm still eligible, just as a general. The agency has a pretty good, if not really good, document that steps the applicant through the application and it's separate. It's basically a separate document that gives you guidance on how you're gonna fill out the application. I don't recall how net profit is defined underneath that document. I think that's really the core of your question, Representative Fagard, is whether or not there's enough information in that document about how a person calculates net profit. And to make sure that they see it before they get to the application so that it's necessary for them to actually see that information before they go in and perhaps make themselves ineligible. Thank you. Ruth, did you put your hand up? Yeah, I did, but Chris has had his hand up longer so I'm gonna defer to him now. I must not be on your screen, Mr. Chair. Oh, now you, I switch. I'm curious, I'd just like to weigh in and say for sure we should make it clear about the W-2 question in our own bill and not be dependent on a different bill advancing that covers everybody. I hope we're in agreement there. My question is, is there any wisdom to making it clear or maybe someone could comfort me that it's already clear that somebody who's tried to apply already and basically got discouraged by the net profitability question could come back or maybe even have the agency reach out and signal that they could come back? We just have such a time crunch in the moment when these folks are so busy anyway that I wanna make sure we're not inadvertently sending people away when we're actually working hard to bring them back. So somebody from the agency or Michael, can you answer that? I can't say like that. Go ahead, Michael, sorry. I just wanna clarify. You said if they've been discouraged from applying so they actually haven't applied. Well, that's a separate question, but no, if they have started to apply and then they had a profit so they went to working lands and suddenly they didn't have a W-2 and so they're out. You know, I just wonder about people that we haven't been able to help that would be eligible after October 1st if this is in the law. I think that's the question for the agency. So Steve, do you have an answer to Chris's concern? Sure, Senator Pearson, that's a great question and absolutely people. The only bar is you can only apply once. So if you haven't submitted if you haven't actually applied then you're still eligible to apply. And that would be, and obviously we've been trying to promote this continuously as we go but we would also want to promote any changes because that's our only objective is to get all the money out. And on that point, I actually have something I'd like to raise at some point but I don't need to do it now if, anyway. Well, if it's going in this piece of legislation it better come up pretty soon. If you'll allow me, I can raise it right now. Sure, go ahead. Okay, so it's actually something that Mike had raised with us earlier which is a great point and that is about the possibility that Congress may extend the Coronavirus Relief Fund deadline to give us after December 30th. And so recognizing that you won't be in session a lot longer, I think it would be terrific if we could add a proviso to this legislation that if Congress extends the deadlines that that would allow us to extend the application deadline so people would have even more time to apply and also the reversion deadlines to whatever Congress and acts it because you won't be around to fix it, arguably especially if the current deadline is November 15th but it would be a shame to lose that money and I think it's a fairly easy contingency fix. I thought, Michael, correct me if I'm wrong. I thought the powers to be was gonna have a statement in the major portion of that bill or in the first part of the main bill to take care of that situation. I think that's correct. I think Steve, it really depends on what vehicle this language travels on. If it goes in the larger CRF corrections bill there's gonna be a extension provision slash reversion provision in that bill. If it goes into another bill that doesn't have that default you should probably include the language as part of this language as well. It really depends on what vehicle it's gonna travel on. Yeah, well, I've been told and that's why we're pushing to get this done that this was gonna get forwarded to the Appropriations Committee which is doing the overall bill like they did before to include this with just one bill. They're gonna include the whole thing. Right, and I was supposed to take a shot at drafting some of that language on Friday afternoon but some drama arose around the social equity for immigrants bill and I had to do some drafting on that. Ruth, did you have a question? Well, I just wanted, I note again that Michael hasn't gone through all the language so there's still some leftover stuff regarding farmers markets. So I wanted to hear his walkthrough of that section if we, before we run out of time. So right now, we're gonna ask- Chris also has something that he wants to say. Well, I got an unsatisfying answer not that it wasn't an accurate answer about the idea that somebody's applied, they were rejected. Now we're changing the criteria. It sounds like maybe we've even barred them because people have only been able to apply once and I'd like to see us make it clear that if we have now let you in under the new criteria but you failed to get in prior, you'd be allowed to re-up and I can't imagine that we wouldn't do that so I wanna make sure we don't let that slip. Senator Starr, this is Allison. May I reply to Senator Pearson on that please? Yeah, sure. So I'm sorry I don't have video, boys are home their first day of school and it's cutting out so I apologize for that. I've been trying to raise my hand, it lets me give a thumbs up and clap so I can't raise my hand. So I just, a couple of things. I know that our team is meeting today at 11 o'clock with MTX and we will be asking about that question. It is on the list. Wondering if we can clear out the ineligible applicants or have folks re-register with a new username. We also have been inquiring on whether they have a list of those readily available for us on the applicants that have been deemed ineligible. So hopefully we'll have more answers for you as it relates to that question. One other piece that I just wanted to put in there, unrelated but I think related in the sense that the agency does take this serious and we do wanna see all apply that can apply. And last week there was a testimony given by two applicants. I can't remember Amanda's last name but I'll also verse your beef. And our team did reach out to both of those witnesses and have a conversation with them. So we're not only watching those that come before your committees but we're also wanting to get in touch with those that are deemed ineligible. We'll do our best to make sure everybody gets money that's available to get it. Thank you, Allison. Chris, did that take care of your concerns or? Glad it's on the list. Thank you. Yeah. So we've got about five more minutes senators have because we're gonna be on the floor like 20 after nine. So Michael, you wanna finish up? Sure. So on page eight, remember there was the concern raised by some of the farmer's markets and by NOFA that because they did not have $10,000 in annual gross sales that they would not qualify for the non-dairy program. And when you originally address that question you would have changed the application for the non-dairy program which the agency said raised concerns regarding the MTX application. So instead what you are doing is you're creating a separate farmer's market relief assistance program for those farmer's markets that have less than $10,000 in annual gross sales. You would appropriate an additional $250,000. So this is not coming from the money that was already appropriated on the additional $250,000 for the purpose of awarding grants to farmer's markets in the state that have suffered verifiable lost revenues or expenses caused by COVID-19. And then you'll see to be eligible you have to have annual gross sales of less than $10,000 and that they shall demonstrate to the agency lost revenues or expenses that occurred or accrued on or after March 1, 2020 before November 1, 2020 due to COVID-19. The agency shall award the grants equitably to eligible farmer's markets in the state. That's similar to what you did for ag fairs and the agency shall transfer any amounts appropriated for this purpose that remain both unencumbered and unspent as of December 1, 2020 to the agency of agriculture for award underneath those programs you just went through the dairy, non-dairy working lands or any pooled or reallocated funds. So that's the farmer's market language. But I thought there was only like 14 or 15 farmer markets. No, there's closer to 60 to 70, 50. You know, the number I've heard ranges between 50 and 70. And how many of them grows less than $10,000? I mean, probably most. Most? Right, it's because it's the farmer's market itself. It's not the people that are selling at the farmer's market. Boy, we go and ask for another 250,000. It's gonna be pretty rough. That's probably you're the best person to pine on that. I was thinking the same thing, Bobby. I wondered where that number came from. I don't recall us talking about an additional appropriation here. I think you, I'm sorry. I would put in there, Michael. I mean, I'm thinking out loud. I mean, I'm thinking out loud. Now, because this is called Turkey, but I would think that after a certain day, date, if there were funds still available that give the agency the authority to appropriate on an equitable basis to these smaller farmer markets. From the grand total of all the funds or something. Sure, I can draft language like that. There was a chat from Abby Willard saying that there's 13 winters markets, just FYI. Yeah. Well, this isn't limited to the winters farmer's markets. No, I understand. But they're more likely to make more money. If they're open also in the winter. Then just the summer. Well, I, you know, I think it's important that we recognize the importance of these farmer markets and that. We get some assistance to them. Yeah. We maybe messed up in the beginning, by putting that limit at $10,000. And we should try to correct that. But to go back to the, to the well and try to get another $250,000. I think is going to be problematic. And we ought to figure out a system where if we have money, we're going to be able to, you know, figure out a system where if we have money left in our kitty, you know, at a given date to then allow the agency to, to move forward and fund them to in an equitable and fair way. Is that agreeable with, with folks? Yeah. I think so. What was the original number that was given to the farmers market? Was that 500,000? No, this is the first number that you've seen. Or. The farmers market originally were eligible under the non-dairy program. Which had over. I might be thinking about the fairs, Carol. Yeah. You're right. You're right. Thanks, Brian. Yeah. So I, this actually brings up another question. And I know senators have to leave for the floor momentarily. The house is going to stay on because I think, and I also think that we will probably meet tomorrow as we're scheduled to do at eight 30. Hopefully Michael can join us and we can go through maybe the, which will be more. Firmed up by then, but I've also had speaking of farmers markets. I also had an inquiry from a friend and constituent who actually manages one of the larger farmers markets in the state. And, you know, regarding what's going to happen with them. So I don't want to change the subject here while you all are on. I notice also, that John O'Brien's had his hand up for quite a long time, but I think we need to actually think about the farmer's markets and what, what's going to happen when they need to move indoors. So, but I, I don't want to rush anybody, but we are running out of time. Could, could we meet? Could we meet at. Nine o'clock tomorrow morning to. As a joint crew to try to get this, this tail end figured out and Michael could, could get that not was standing language in, in the bill. Yeah. Well, Bobby, that's what I was just suggesting that potentially we, we have our already scheduled eight 30 to 10. 30 meeting tomorrow morning. So if you want to hop onto that with us whenever you can, that would be fine. And maybe the language will be a little bit more finalized at that point. Yeah. Could, could the senators meet at nine tomorrow morning. Or eight 30. Yep. I can possibly make it. I can make it. I can make it. I can make it. I can make it. I can possibly make it for eight 30. I've got a meeting in Newport at eight o'clock, but it's a short, short meeting. It'll be real short. Well, maybe those that can make it just show up at eight 30. That good Chris. He's naughty. Yes. Well, we'll, we'll plan on eight 30 then. You know, they're built. So Carolyn, maybe you guys can work to try to get that squared away a little bit better. Okay. Yeah, Bobby. A couple, a few hands are up. So we're going to stick with it now as you guys leave. And we'll see. We'll see where we get. Okay. And we'll see you back tomorrow morning at eight 30 or so. Sounds good. Thanks. Thank you. Good working with you. All of you. Yeah, bye. So John, you had your hand up. Do you want to ask your question at this point, or have you forgotten actually what it was? Right. My question is, how do I get to ask a question? No, I think there's a question in here somewhere, that if all the, all these CRF funds, applying to, to ag businesses, right? They have to show either economic harm or. COVID related retrofits to businesses, right? Just at the, at that's universal. That's correct. Okay. So. So what we learned from testimony with the non-dairy people was that, you know, during that window of application, some of these businesses, just the accounting methods they're using, we're showing profits, even though their, their businesses were getting hammered and they may go out of business by the end of the year. Or, or soon. So I was wondering if we change. The accounting methods for those potential net profit people. Does that, what, what we're going to take into account so that, that the economic harm saved for the last year that they've been suffering will be shown with that effect, the dairy farmers and processors. The way they apply also, because it seems that. The way their, their accounting is gone might, might be different if, if we're changing it for everybody else. You see what I'm saying? I do. I don't know if you're necessarily changing. Any accounting. The federal cares act is the one that put the condition on the funds needs to be cost or expenses related to COVID-19. So the applicant needs to show that. So, if you take away the net profit criteria, or have them being funneled into working lands. I don't think there is that net profit issue anymore. And then it's just about them demonstrating their economic losses and their expenses related to COVID-19. Which, for example, dairy is doing by use of what they're being paid for their, for their milk versus what was expected to be paid. And so I don't know if you need to change the accounting method at all and defer to the agency to see if they have any input on that question. I think that would be, if, if some of those non dairy businesses had whatever made them show on their spreadsheet a net profit. And they were getting kicked out because of that, even though there was real economic harm there, either, you know, pre pre March or post October 1st. So, you know, the potential dairy farmers, you know, have the same sorts of economic harm on either side of that window that they could then roll into their application. I see what you're saying. And so if you, if you incurred the costs outside of the window, but it was related to COVID, can you, and because of your accounting practices, it's not being accounted for in the window. Can you count it? So, so when I applied, there is an opportunity after you get through your profit and loss statements. There's an opportunity to talk about economic harm. I included the Maryland sheep and wool festival, which was in May. So it was part of my profit and loss, which can be clearly, it clearly demonstrated, but it also allows you to claim, and I did the New York sheep and wool festival, which is in October. I was able to upload, download the message, the email message saying that it had been canceled. And I can't remember when it was canceled, but it was a while ago and, and, and you're, and I, so I included that as part of my loss. So it wasn't in the current window, but it was allowed to be noted. I don't know if that helps or not, but. Um, I, I think that's not exactly the same question. Okay. Because there you could show the demonstrated loss in it. I don't, I don't remember what time you said the New York festival was, but if it was in October. Okay. So Steve, do you have any. Answer to that. I can try. So I think there are two different things that issue. One is the federal law requires only covers necessary expenditures. Or losses that occur from March 1st to December 30th. So that's the allowed time. We, and we allow that. I think our legislation S 351, I think maybe set up until December 1st instead of December 30th. But either way, our application has always preceded that. So right now it's October 1st. So we at the agency made a judgment call that we couldn't allow. Losses that occurred prior to the application date, because they couldn't be adequately proven. So it just became too speculative to try to assess what somebody's December losses may be when they haven't occurred yet. The issue that the chair just raised about a festival. We made it with it's canceled. We made, and that this arose from the fairs application initially, because some of the fair that that timeline, again, the federal law remained the same up to up through December 30th. But the fairs deadline was September 1st, if I recall correctly, and some of the fairs like Tumbridge occurred after September 1st. So in that instance, we made the judgment call that, that the actual date of loss was not when the fair would have occurred or in the chair situation, when the sheep festival would have occurred, rather it was when the event was canceled. So if you could prove what you, what if you could prove your losses based on past revenue, and the event was canceled prior to the deadline, then we allowed it. But other than that, we've only allowed people to claim losses that have actually occurred because we think it's too speculative to project what may or may not happen before somebody's applied. So does that answer your question, Representative O'Brien? Or. So is it possible to use your, say your 2019, you know, whether it's your 1040 or your profit and loss as, as a, also as a bar, you know, to, to demonstrate 2020 economic COVID losses. Yes. So we're, we try to be as flexible as possible and how people could prove their losses. So we've generally speaking, the framework is you look at the month and in this year, 2020 and compare it to the same month in 2019. That's not always the case. For example, with milk prices, we, and you all enabled this through the legislation, we compared the January rate because that was the known rate of milk and the projections were actually for milk prices to increase, but instead they precipitously dropped. So we need some kind of barometer from the past to look at what they should have earned. Generally, it's the preceding year's month, but sometimes a business may not have been around that long. You know, a business may have opened in January. And so that, that becomes more complicated. So yes, we need, we need something show what you lot, but in generally it's the before. Okay. All right. Sharon's hand is up unless somebody had a followup to what Steve just said. Go ahead. Thank you. And I, I thought I heard representative O'Brien talking about dairy, whereas dairy doesn't have to show that they didn't make a net profit. They, you know, their accounting is so different from what we're expecting from the non-dairy sector that. I think I remember somebody saying all the applicants that they've had come through have maxed out, like that they're getting the full amount available through the bill, which is one reason why we want it to be able to give dairy more. But, but my question is I want to clarify and make sure I understand the farmer's market piece where it makes sense to not try to get into a new bundle of money coming in in order to support the farmer's markets. Did I understand that the general thought is that. At the October one deadline that we start allowing farmers markets of access to that money. I didn't catch when the deadline, but I think what I heard is that when the money is pulled and the agency has flexibility. And so I think that then these farmers markets. That currently are not, not eligible because they don't meet the $10,000 mark would then have. Be considered and they can apply and it would be through. They would end up getting shuffled into the, like the we lab. Pot. Is that correct? Somewhat and somewhat. No. Okay. I think it would probably make sense to have. The money that's unexpended after October 1st to have language that says. If there's money remaining. 250,000. Will be allocated to the program that's created under section F of the language that I gave. The, it would not be part of we lab. It would be a separate program similar to the act fairs program. It would not be processed through MTX. It would be processed through the agencies. I don't know if they're normal application process. Abby Willard talked a little bit about that last week and about how they could do that timing might be a little bit tight. But they think they could do it in the same manner that they did the act fairs application. So did that answer your question? I think so. And I wanted to share that I stopped by the richford farmers market this weekend to check in on them and just to. To hear from a very small farmers market that's been around for 28 years. How the pandemic has affected them. I think it's a little bit different. I think it's a little bit different. And I think it's a little bit different. I think it's a little bit different. Yeah, I think it's a little bit different. And I think it's a little bit different. Yeah. They have losses for sure. And they did not know that. That there was a possibility that federal money could be accessible to them. So. You know, I, I want to make sure that we're providing relief for those, those organizations. Thank you. So just to be clear. So originally farmers markets were going to be, and still are eligible underneath non-dairy. If they have $10,000 of annual gross sales. The issue is that many, if not most farmers markets don't have $10,000 in annual gross sales, but still have losses or expenses related to COVID-19. Right. So the language that I handed out this morning, the $250,000 would not have come from any of the existing. Ag assistance programs. It would have been a new appropriation from the overall coronavirus relief fund. And that's when Senator Starr said it would be difficult to get that money. Let's try another option that went on a certain date. And I'm just wondering if, if all we did was to remove the requirement to, um, To gross. Um, Um, I'm just wondering if, if all we did was to remove the requirement to, um, Um, To gross. Um, 10,000 dollars. How would that play? You know, just, it would come out of the money that there's there. I don't know. And I don't know what the status is at this moment for the money that's available. And I don't know, Steve, if you can answer this or Allison or Abby, but or Laura. Or Anson. Thank you for being with us. Um, But what impact with that? Have on the, um, The what's in there now for the non dairy. Ag. If we just took the requirement for the $10,000 out. Well, the, the issue there was, was not the availability of funding. The issue was having to change the application further. Yeah. And the timing and delay that that would. Yeah. And the equity issue as well. Yeah. Okay. Just thinking. Outside the box, John. Yeah. Just a quick question. How. How in general do farmers markets make their money? Is it on selling. Bender booths or. Or percentage of, of farmers sales? I don't know. Is Abby still on the line? Hi, Abby. Good morning. Yeah. Abby will an agency of agriculture. Generally it's vendor seat fees representative O'Brien. So what, what we're hearing from the farmers market community is that we generally have about 70 farmers markets a year. This year it looks like. 55 or so. Partially because some markets are struggling to find a space that was authorized to host their market due to COVID. But there's some markets that haven't. Even been initiated this year, or are definitely already scheduling two markets have already decided to not host winter farmers markets. But normally we have around 15 winter farmers markets. This year it looks like we'll have 13, but the numbers fluctuate with the number of farmers markets each year based upon the community and the organization of the market. Because they're so often managed by a part time, very part time, or sometimes volunteer market manager. The association itself oftentimes isn't a very profitable organization other than what they receive in vendor fees. Because at the beginning of the year, we had a number of farmers markets. We actually limited the number of vendors that were able to market at a farmer's market and we originally restricted it just to essential food. There were a variety of vendors that weren't able to even legally vend at a farmer's market. So if you did fiber or soap or postcards, we said that those were not in the beginning, not eligible essential needs at a farmer's market. We did amend that guidance for the vendor market. But we restricted the spacing between booths to a space that then required many markets to have to reduce their vendor participants. And so by doing so, that meant that the vendor fees that most or many markets accepted was quite reduced for 2020. And then representative for guard for in your regard to the market, that you connected with is our goal to send to have every market be aware of this opportunity. We do most of our marketing through farmers markets for, for farmers markets through NOFA and the Vermont farmers market association. So NOFA has been identified and statute as the organization that sort of manages farmers market, which is why we get the final numbers from. NOFA as opposed to manage them at the agency. So that's what's written into statute. And the TFMA membership. Does not necessarily include every farmers market. So there are some markets that sometimes are just not as engaged in receiving resources and information and routine communication with the agency or with NOFA, but we can certainly do a better job to make sure that all markets are aware of this application, but we generally use the association and NOFA for the outreach. So did we ever hear Abby of the say 66 farmers markets, how, how many of those fall under the 10,000 gross sales, say judging from last year's sales. And why did we cut them out? It's a great question. We didn't ask. We didn't ask. That of farmers markets. We essentially just promoted that the opportunity existed there. And there was this base eligibility of the $10,000 in gross revenue. Laura Ginsburg is on, because she's actually managing more of the app on the application side. My recollection is, as we said, there's been three farmers markets that have applied to date. And all three of them have met that $10,000. Gross revenue eligibility threshold. But as we mentioned, they were the, they're the larger markets. It was Burlington, Norwich and capital city in Montpelier. But there are certainly some small markets that may not meet. And it sounds like based on the testimony from NOFA, they are certain that won't meet that threshold. But I can't say that we know of the 55 markets that plan to operate in 2020, how many of them will or will not meet that threshold. But that's a great question that we could ask for NOFA and the Vermont farmers market association to assist us with and collecting that information. All right. We have another few minutes, but not tons. We will meet tomorrow at 8. Three. I don't know how to crack this nut. In terms of the farmers markets. If Bobby. If Bobby. Thinks it's going to be difficult. He's the member of a probes to come up with the extra $250,000. But Vicki, I see your hand is up. Why don't you go ahead? I think it's just. Excuse me. A quick question. Maybe Abby. How much of a deal breaker would this grant be for a farmers market? If they're making kind of less than 10,000. It's not a big deal. I think it's going to be a big deal. I think it's going to be a big deal. I think it's going to be a big deal. I think it's going to be a big deal for the farmers market. If they're making kind of less than 10,000. It's not a big amount of money. So could they just regroup for next year? Let's say it's a normal year. How many farmers markets would just kind of go to poop. If they didn't get this money. Yeah. Representative strong. It's a good question. And I don't know the answer. How many would choose to just close their doors if they didn't receive. I think the biggest question that the agency and many of our partners have considered is when, when COVID first hit in. March. Farmers market reduction in local food sales. Such estimates that came out was just under $2 million. That would be lost by local ag producers. Between March and April. By having those markets closed. So I think. In general, farmers markets. Are very difficult to determine. But I, but I, your questions are prompting me to start a. Email to the farmers market association representative at NOFA to just ask. How quickly could they get some statistics from markets? I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I don't know. I, I don't know. I don't know. I just want to just ask how quickly could they get some statistics from markets on their intention to. Relay upon some COVID relief funds. Or. How many of them may have above $10,000 in revenue? The challenges. This is a very difficult time to connect with farmers market managers because they're so busy. during the growing season and market season to kind of get a lot of information from them, but we can certainly try. Okay, so what I'm hearing is the major problem here is the application. Okay, Anson, why don't you go ahead? Sure, thank you Madam Chair. I would just add that keep in mind the dairy program, we've already baked that in that if everyone hits their cap, there is enough money in it. It's pretty clear that probably not everyone is going to either apply or hit their cap. So I believe there will be some money left over. So if you had to transfer a quarter of a million dollars into the farmer's market program, you know, I can't, I mean, we don't know. I mean, we've got, if you extend the deadline to November 15th, we don't know, but my gut tells me there will probably be a quarter of a million dollars left in dairy that could be transferred over to the farmer's markets. It's also some have already applied to the regular funding. So those three that are through that, so that money is already baked in as well. So I think if it's strictly a money issue, if there was some language where you could transfer some leftover dairy money, if there is leftover dairy money, which I think there's going to be, then you could use that 250,000 for the farmer's market and we could do it just like we did with the fairs and field days, because our biggest concern was sort of the application process, if we had to change the application and that would cause delay of getting money out and et cetera. So just a thought. Okay. Micah, great. Oh, Abby's hand is up, Abby? Yeah, just really quickly, thank you, Chair. To the point that Anson's making, we have some very early analysis of the businesses in the ag and working lands application and maybe Laura Ginsburg can also speak to this, but businesses are hitting their cap because the caps are so low in the ag and working lands application in comparison to say the dairy application. So $2,500 is the lowest tier in the ag and working lands application based upon gross revenue from 2019. So it kind of begs a couple of questions. One, about the need for a supplemental application if businesses are all hitting their cap, we could go through all the effort to create an opportunity for those businesses that applied prior to September or October 1st to have access to a supplemental application, but if they've all hit their cap, then there's no value in a secondary supplemental application because they can't unless we raise the caps or unless the legislature, you all decide to raise the caps. They aren't eligible for more funds anyway. And the same thing comes up around an equity question for us. As Anson mentioned with the fares, we wanted to ensure that they were equitably distributed across the fares. Right now, if farmers markets applied through the ag and working lands application and they had annual revenue less than $10,000, they obviously would be ineligible, but there's no way that they would make more than $2,500 per application because that's the cap for the lowest tier. And so something to really think about the amount that markets would be eligible for in a carve out. But we had done the quick math in a previous conversation that $250,000 was like the maximum, but we might wanna think about aligning the caps between the ag and working lands application and what the farmers market application might also award. So just something for us to think about. Yeah, yeah. Okay, thanks Abby. All right, Sharon has your hand up and I think this has to be the last thing before we break away to go to the floor of the house. So Sharon, go ahead. I forgot what I was going to say. Oh well, one of the vagaries of getting older. All right, okay, I wanna thank everybody for joining us today. I wanna thank everybody from the agency. If you're available tomorrow, it might be helpful to have you on the line. If you can, you know, let Linda know and Mike, I'm hoping you're gonna be available at 830 tomorrow. So anyway, thanks everybody and we'll see you tomorrow at 830.